1. Introduction

“Code as Law” is a major concept in cyberlaw and legal theory associated principally with Lawrence Lessig. The basic idea is that in cyberspace, computer code, software architecture, protocols, algorithms and technical design can regulate human behaviour in ways that resemble the regulatory effect of conventional law. Lessig's framework identifies four principal forces that regulate behaviour: law, social norms, markets, and architecture/code.

The expression “Code is Law” does not literally mean that computer code is legislation enacted by a legislature. Rather, it means that code can establish practical permissions and prohibitions:

• what a user can access;
• what a user cannot access;
• what information can be collected;
• who can communicate with whom;
• whether content can be uploaded;
• whether copying is technically possible;
• whether anonymity is permitted;
• whether a platform can automatically remove content; and
• whether a transaction can take place.

Modern scholarship therefore distinguishes code's regulatory power from formal legal validity: code can constrain behaviour very effectively, but it does not automatically create legally enforceable rights and duties merely because a programmer has written it.

2. Meaning of Code as Law

Simple definition

Code as Law means that the architecture, software, algorithms, protocols and technical design of digital systems regulate human conduct by permitting, restricting, enabling or disabling particular actions, sometimes with an effect comparable to traditional legal regulation.

For example:

A website can technically prevent a user from downloading a video.

Even if there is no physical guard or police officer, the software itself creates the restriction.

Similarly:

• a banking application may block transactions above a predetermined limit;
• a social-media platform may automatically remove prohibited content;
• an online marketplace may prevent a seller from listing a prohibited product;
• DRM may technically prevent copying;
• encryption may prevent unauthorized access;
• an age-verification system may prevent minors from entering certain areas.

The technical architecture itself becomes a mechanism of behavioural regulation.

3. Origin of the Theory

The phrase is strongly associated with Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

Lessig argued that cyberspace should not be understood as a legally unregulated environment merely because traditional physical rules do not operate there.

Instead, behaviour online is constrained by four modalities:

1. Law

Formal rules enacted or recognized by the state.

2. Norms

Social expectations and community standards.

3. Market

Economic incentives and commercial pressures.

4. Architecture

The physical and technological environment within which conduct occurs.

In cyberspace, code constitutes a major part of architecture.

4. The Four Modalities of Regulation

These modalities frequently operate together.

Example

A social-media platform prohibits hate speech.

There may be:

Law → prohibits certain unlawful content.

Norms → community standards prohibit offensive conduct.

Market → advertisers may leave platforms that tolerate harmful content.

Code → automated moderation blocks or removes certain material.

Thus, digital regulation is rarely produced by law alone.

5. Why Code Can Function Like Law

Traditional law generally says:

“You must not do X.”

Code can instead make X technically impossible.

For example:

Traditional legal rule

You must not access this database without authorization.

Code-based rule

The authentication system physically prevents you from entering without valid credentials.

The first operates through legal obligation and potential sanctions.

The second operates through technical constraint.

This is one of the central insights of the Code-as-Law theory.

6. Code Regulates Before Conduct Occurs

An important distinction is:

Traditional law

Often operates after conduct occurs.

Example:

A person commits an offence → investigation → prosecution → punishment.

Code

Can operate before the conduct occurs.

Example:

User attempts unauthorized access → authentication system rejects access.

Therefore, code can be:

• preventive;
• continuous;
• automated;
• instantaneous;
• individualized;
• difficult to evade.

This makes technical architecture a powerful regulatory instrument.

7. Code Is Not Literally Law

This distinction is essential in an examination answer.

A programmer cannot ordinarily create a legally binding rule simply by writing software.

For example:

A platform's code may say:

“Users cannot download their own data.”

That does not automatically mean that the platform legally possesses an unrestricted right to prevent data portability.

There may be:

• statutory rights;
• contractual obligations;
• consumer-protection rules;
• privacy rights;
• constitutional rights;
• competition law;
• intellectual-property law

that override or restrict the technical architecture.

Therefore:

Code can regulate behaviour without necessarily possessing the normative legitimacy or legal authority of formal law.

Modern scholarship expressly emphasizes this distinction.

8. Code as Private Regulation

One of the most important developments is that private companies increasingly create rules through software.

Examples include:

• Google;
• Meta;
• Amazon;
• Apple;
• Microsoft;
• cloud providers;
• cryptocurrency exchanges;
• online marketplaces;
• gaming platforms.

Their technical architecture can determine:

• who may enter;
• what content can be posted;
• what advertisements users see;
• how accounts are suspended;
• what information is collected;
• what transactions can occur.

Consequently, private technology companies can exercise a form of quasi-regulatory power.

9. Code and Platform Governance

A social-media platform may have a rule:

“Hate speech is prohibited.”

But the practical enforcement may be performed by:

• automated classifiers;
• content filters;
• keyword detection;
• image recognition;
• account restrictions;
• recommendation algorithms.

Therefore, the actual rule experienced by the user is not simply the written policy.

It is:

Policy + algorithm + interface + enforcement architecture.

This is one reason why code has become increasingly important in modern governance.

10. Code and Privacy

Code can either protect or destroy privacy.

Privacy-protective architecture

• end-to-end encryption;
• data minimization;
• anonymous accounts;
• local processing;
• privacy-enhancing technologies.

Privacy-invasive architecture

• persistent tracking;
• facial recognition;
• behavioural profiling;
• location tracking;
• automatic data collection.

Thus:

Privacy is partly a legal rule and partly an architectural choice.

Lessig's theory specifically emphasizes that technical design affects how easy or difficult privacy protection becomes.

11. Code and Freedom of Speech

Code can regulate speech by:

• blocking words;
• suspending accounts;
• removing content;
• limiting visibility;
• controlling recommendations;
• restricting access to platforms.

This raises an important constitutional question:

Who controls the architecture of digital speech?

If a government requires platforms to design code that blocks particular political speech, the issue may involve constitutional rights.

If a private platform independently designs its moderation system, the legal analysis may be different.

12. Code and Access Control

Authentication systems are a classic example.

A system may use:

• password;
• biometric authentication;
• two-factor authentication;
• cryptographic keys;
• digital certificates.

These mechanisms establish technical boundaries.

The law may say:

“Unauthorized access is prohibited.”

The code then implements that prohibition through technical architecture.

Thus:

Law establishes the normative rule.

Code implements the practical barrier.

13. Code and Intellectual Property

Digital rights management (DRM) is perhaps one of the clearest examples.

A copyright owner may legally prohibit unauthorized copying.

DRM can additionally make copying technically difficult or impossible.

Thus:

Copyright law + DRM

creates two layers of protection.

This raises an important issue:

If technology makes an act technically impossible, is additional legal enforcement still necessary?

Usually yes, because technical controls can be bypassed and legal rights may govern conduct beyond what the software can detect.

14. Code and Smart Contracts

Blockchain and smart contracts have given the theory renewed importance.

A smart contract can automatically execute:

“If X happens, transfer Y.”

For example:

Payment received → digital asset transferred.

No human intermediary may need to approve the transaction.

This raises the question:

Is the smart contract itself the legal rule?

Generally, not necessarily.

The code may determine what happens technically, while traditional law determines:

• whether the agreement is legally valid;
• whether consent existed;
• whether fraud occurred;
• whether the transaction is illegal;
• whether consumer law applies;
• whether the resulting obligation is enforceable.

Therefore:

Code can execute an arrangement without necessarily determining its legal validity.

15. Code and Artificial Intelligence

AI substantially expands the Code-as-Law concept.

Algorithms can now determine:

• loan approvals;
• credit scores;
• insurance pricing;
• employment screening;
• content recommendations;
• account suspensions;
• fraud detection;
• risk classification.

The concern is that:

A person may be governed by an algorithm without ever seeing the algorithm's underlying rules.

This creates questions concerning:

• transparency;
• explainability;
• discrimination;
• due process;
• accountability;
• human oversight;
• auditability.

AI therefore represents a movement from:

rule written by legislators

to

rule implemented by software

to potentially:

rule generated or optimized by algorithms.

16. Important Case Laws

1. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

Facts

The U.S. Supreme Court considered restrictions imposed by the Communications Decency Act on online communications.

Principle

The Court recognized the internet as an important medium of communication and held that the First Amendment applied to governmental restrictions on online speech.

Relevance to Code as Law

The case established that cyberspace is not a legally exceptional zone outside constitutional principles.

It demonstrates that:

Technical architecture may shape online communication, but constitutional law remains relevant to governmental regulation of that space.

Importance

Reno is foundational for understanding the relationship between:

• internet architecture;
• government regulation;
• free speech;
• digital communication.

17. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)

Facts

An AOL user was subjected to defamatory postings made by an unknown person.

The plaintiff argued that AOL should be liable for failing to remove the material after notification.

Principle

The Fourth Circuit interpreted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as providing broad protection to interactive computer services against certain publisher-type claims concerning third-party content.

Code-as-Law significance

The case demonstrates that platform architecture and intermediary design can influence who controls online content.

A platform can establish:

• reporting systems;
• moderation systems;
• removal systems;
• user-account controls.

But the legal consequences of those systems are determined by statutory law.

Lesson

Code and legal rules interact rather than operate independently.

18. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

Facts

French organizations sought to prevent access in France to Nazi memorabilia offered through Yahoo!'s website.

The dispute raised difficult questions concerning:

• jurisdiction;
• internet architecture;
• territorial regulation;
• content restrictions.

Principle

The case illustrated the difficulty of applying territorial legal rules to a globally accessible technological system.

Code-as-Law relevance

A website can technically determine:

• geographic access;
• IP-based blocking;
• authentication;
• content availability.

Thus, technology can become a mechanism for implementing geographically different legal rules.

Importance

It is an important example of the relationship between:

territorial law + global architecture + technical access controls.

19. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

Facts

The Supreme Court considered constitutional challenges to provisions of the Information Technology Act, particularly Section 66A.

Principle

The Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional and upheld important aspects of the intermediary framework under Section 79 subject to statutory safeguards.

Code-as-Law significance

This case is extremely important in India because it demonstrates that:

Government cannot simply use digital architecture or intermediary mechanisms to impose restrictions that violate constitutional speech protections.

The judgment also recognizes the special role of intermediaries in controlling digital information.

Importance

It connects:

• online speech;
• intermediary architecture;
• government regulation;
• constitutional rights.

20. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

Facts

The case concerned restrictions on internet access in Jammu and Kashmir.

Principle

The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and freedom to carry on trade or profession through the internet receive constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), subject to constitutionally valid restrictions.

The Court also emphasized principles of proportionality concerning restrictions.

Code-as-Law relevance

Internet access itself has become a precondition for participation in many social and economic activities.

Therefore:

Control over digital infrastructure can substantially affect the exercise of constitutional rights.

Importance

Anuradha Bhasin demonstrates that digital architecture is not merely technical infrastructure; it can become a condition for exercising fundamental freedoms.

21. Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017)

Facts

North Carolina prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing broad categories of social-media websites.

Principle

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law violated the First Amendment because it broadly restricted access to important spaces for communication and information.

Code-as-Law relevance

Social-media platforms have become significant forums for:

• political discussion;
• social interaction;
• information exchange.

The case shows that government cannot necessarily use legal rules to exclude people from digital spaces without satisfying constitutional requirements.

Importance

It demonstrates the intersection of:

digital architecture + access restrictions + constitutional freedom.

22. Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021)

Facts

A police officer used a law-enforcement database for an improper purpose, despite having authorized access to the database.

Issue

The Supreme Court considered the meaning of “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Principle

The Court adopted a narrower interpretation, distinguishing:

accessing information one is not entitled to access

from

accessing information one is entitled to access but using it for an improper purpose.

Code-as-Law relevance

The case is highly relevant because digital systems contain technical access permissions.

The architecture may determine:

• who has an account;
• what files can be accessed;
• what permissions exist.

But legal liability depends upon how statutory law interprets those permissions.

Importance

It demonstrates the interaction between:

technical authorization + contractual/organizational permission + statutory law.

23. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022)

Facts

hiQ collected publicly available LinkedIn profile information.

LinkedIn attempted to block hiQ's access through technical measures and invoked the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Principle

The Ninth Circuit held that publicly accessible information presented significant difficulties for treating subsequent access as unauthorized access under the CFAA.

Code-as-Law relevance

LinkedIn attempted to use technical barriers to control access to information.

The case demonstrates the critical question:

Does a technical decision to block access automatically establish a legally enforceable right to exclude?

Not necessarily.

Importance

This is one of the strongest modern illustrations of the distinction between:

what code permits or blocks

and

what the law recognizes as legally authorized or unauthorized.

24. Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. 273 (2019)

Principle

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed iPhone users to pursue an antitrust claim concerning Apple's App Store practices.

Code-as-Law relevance

The App Store is not simply a marketplace.

Apple's architecture determines:

• which applications may be distributed;
• payment mechanisms;
• developer access;
• platform rules;
• user purchasing channels.

Therefore, platform architecture can have significant economic consequences.

Importance

The case illustrates how technical architecture can produce market power, which may then attract competition-law scrutiny.

25. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382

Facts

The case concerned copyrighted content uploaded by users to an online platform.

Principle

The Delhi High Court considered intermediary liability, copyright infringement and the operation of safe-harbour principles.

Code-as-Law relevance

Platforms establish technical systems for:

• uploading;
• storing;
• searching;
• displaying;
• removing content.

The technical design therefore influences the practical enforcement of copyright.

Importance

The case demonstrates that platform architecture and legal rules must operate together.

26. LICRA/Yahoo!, Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin — Comparative Significance

These three cases together show three different dimensions.

Together they demonstrate that:

Digital architecture can be used to restrict conduct, but its legitimacy remains subject to law.

27. Code as Law and Privacy

Consider a mobile application that automatically collects:

• location;
• contacts;
• browsing history;
• microphone information.

Technically, the application may permit such collection through its architecture.

But that does not necessarily mean:

“The code permits it, therefore the law permits it.”

Privacy law may impose independent restrictions.

In India, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 established privacy as a fundamental constitutional right.

Therefore:

Code → permits collection

does not necessarily mean

Law → permits collection.

This distinction is fundamental.

28. Code as Law and Freedom of Contract

Online services frequently operate through:

• clickwrap;
• browsewrap;
• terms of service;
• end-user licence agreements.

The code may force users to:

“I Agree”

before accessing the service.

This creates a combination of:

contract + interface + code.

However, contractual consent is not necessarily unlimited.

Mandatory law may restrict:

• unfair terms;
• consumer waivers;
• privacy practices;
• discriminatory terms;
• competition restrictions.

Therefore:

User-interface design can influence consent, but interface design cannot automatically override mandatory law.

29. Code as Law and Smart Contracts

A smart contract may execute automatically.

Example:

If payment = received → NFT transferred.

Traditional contracts may require:

• interpretation;
• notice;
• human performance;
• enforcement.

A smart contract can execute automatically.

But suppose:

Payment was obtained through fraud.

The blockchain code may still execute the transfer.

The law may nevertheless provide:

• rescission;
• restitution;
• damages;
• injunction;
• other remedies.

Thus:

Code determines what happens technically; law determines what ought to happen legally.

30. Code as Law and Blockchain

Blockchain systems introduce a particularly strong form of architectural regulation.

The system may make transactions:

• immutable;
• transparent;
• automated;
• difficult to reverse.

This creates a tension between:

Code

“The transaction is final.”

and

Law

“A fraudulent or illegal transaction may be subject to legal remedies.”

Therefore:

immutability is a technical property, not necessarily a legal immunity.

31. Code as Law and Content Moderation

Modern platforms may use algorithms to decide whether content should be:

• removed;
• hidden;
• down-ranked;
• demonetized;
• labelled;
• recommended.

This raises significant legal questions:

Transparency

Does the user know why content was restricted?

Due process

Can the user appeal?

Accuracy

Can automated moderation make mistakes?

Bias

Does the algorithm disproportionately affect certain groups?

Accountability

Who is responsible for the decision?

Thus, algorithmic governance is one of the modern extensions of Code-as-Law theory.

Recent scholarship specifically observes that private platforms can exercise substantial regulatory control through their technical architecture and terms of use.

32. Code as Law and Artificial Intelligence

AI changes the traditional Code-as-Law model in three ways.

First generation

Human-written code

Programmer establishes rules.

Second generation

Algorithmic decision-making

Rules process large quantities of information.

Third generation

Machine-learning systems

The system's behaviour may depend upon patterns learned from data rather than a simple fixed rule.

This creates a new question:

If an algorithm makes a regulatory decision, who is the “lawmaker”?

Possibilities include:

• programmer;
• company;
• data provider;
• model developer;
• deploying organization;
• regulator;
• no single identifiable actor.

33. Advantages of Code as Law

1. Immediate enforcement

Code can enforce rules instantaneously.

2. Consistency

The same technical rule can be applied repeatedly.

3. Scalability

Millions of users can be governed simultaneously.

4. Preventive control

Code can stop conduct before it happens.

5. Precision

Technical rules can be highly specific.

6. Automation

Human intervention may not be necessary.

7. Security

Encryption and authentication can enforce restrictions.

8. Auditability

Digital systems can create records of actions.

34. Problems with Code as Law

1. Lack of democratic legitimacy

Who elected the programmer?

2. Lack of transparency

Users may not know how the system works.

3. Private concentration of power

Large technology companies may regulate millions of people.

4. Algorithmic bias

Automated systems can reproduce discriminatory outcomes.

5. Lack of due process

Accounts can sometimes be suspended automatically.

6. Rigidity

Code may apply a rule even where exceptional circumstances exist.

7. Errors

Algorithms can incorrectly identify lawful conduct as prohibited.

8. Cross-border conflicts

One technical architecture can operate across multiple legal systems.

9. Difficulty of accountability

It may be difficult to determine who is responsible for algorithmic decisions.

10. Constitutional conflict

Private technical restrictions may affect freedoms that law protects.

35. Code as Law vs Traditional Law

36. Code as Law and the Rule of Law

The central rule-of-law concern is:

Can people be governed by rules they cannot see, understand or challenge?

Traditional law ideally provides:

• publicity;
• clarity;
• predictability;
• procedural safeguards;
• accountability;
• review.

Code may provide none of these automatically.

Therefore, an important modern principle is:

Technological efficiency cannot replace legal accountability.

37. Code as Law and Constitutional Rights

Suppose a platform's algorithm automatically blocks political content.

Possible questions include:

1. Is the platform private or governmental?
2. What statutory obligations apply?
3. Does constitutional law directly apply?
4. Was the restriction authorized by law?
5. Is there a legitimate objective?
6. Is the restriction proportionate?
7. Is there an appeal mechanism?

Cases such as Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin, Reno, and Packingham demonstrate that digital restrictions can directly implicate fundamental rights.

38. Code as Law in India

India does not recognize a general rule that:

“Computer code is legally equivalent to legislation.”

Instead, Indian law regulates digital architecture through numerous legal frameworks, including:

• Constitution of India;
• Information Technology Act, 2000;
• Information Technology Rules;
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023;
• Copyright Act;
• Contract Act;
• Consumer Protection Act;
• Competition Act;
• sector-specific regulations.

Thus:

Indian law regulates code, while code simultaneously regulates users.

This is a two-way relationship.

39. Code as Law and the Information Technology Act

The IT Act is particularly important because it recognizes legal consequences for:

• unauthorized access;
• computer-related offences;
• electronic records;
• digital signatures;
• intermediary liability;
• cybersecurity.

The legal system therefore interacts directly with technical architecture.

For example:

Authentication system

↓

determines technical access

↓

IT law

↓

determines whether particular access constitutes legally wrongful conduct.

40. Code as Law and Data Protection

Suppose a website technically collects a user's personal information.

The fact that:

“The software can collect it”

does not necessarily mean:

“The organization may lawfully collect it.”

The legal framework may require:

• notice;
• consent or another lawful basis;
• purpose limitation;
• security;
• retention controls;
• user rights.

Therefore:

Technical capability ≠ legal authorization.

This is one of the most important principles in modern data governance.

41. Code as Law and Competition Law

Platform architecture can create market power.

For example, a platform might technically prevent:

• interoperability;
• switching;
• third-party applications;
• alternative payment systems;
• data portability.

Such technical restrictions can potentially become competition-law issues.

The Apple v. Pepper litigation demonstrates how control over a digital platform can become economically significant and attract antitrust scrutiny.

42. Code as Law and Digital Courts

Digital judicial systems also illustrate Code-as-Law principles.

An e-court platform can determine:

• who can file;
• which documents can be uploaded;
• file formats;
• deadlines;
• authentication;
• electronic payment;
• access to case records.

Thus, software architecture can become part of the practical administration of justice.

But if the system incorrectly rejects a filing:

technical rejection cannot necessarily extinguish a legally valid procedural right.

Human review and legal remedies remain important.

43. Code as Law and Cloud Computing

Cloud systems provide another strong example.

A cloud provider's architecture determines:

• user permissions;
• storage access;
• encryption;
• API access;
• data deletion;
• account suspension;
• backup;
• portability.

Therefore:

Cloud architecture determines the practical boundaries within which contractual and legal rights operate.

But a provider's software cannot necessarily override:

• contractual rights;
• privacy legislation;
• intellectual-property rights;
• court orders;
• consumer protection.

44. Case-Law Comparison

45. A Useful Formula

The Code-as-Law concept can be represented as:

Digital Architecture

↓

Technical Permissions + Technical Restrictions

↓

User Behaviour

↓

Private Governance

↓

Legal Consequences

↓

Judicial/Regulatory Review

For example:

Algorithm blocks account

→ user loses access

→ platform policy invoked

→ user challenges decision

→ contract/statute/constitutional principles examined

→ court or regulator determines legal validity.

46. Critical Evaluation

The phrase “Code is Law” should therefore be understood as a descriptive and regulatory theory, not as a literal proposition that software automatically possesses the same legal status as legislation.

Its strongest insight is:

Whoever controls digital architecture can exercise substantial control over human behaviour.

Its greatest danger is:

That regulatory power may be exercised privately, invisibly and without the procedural safeguards normally associated with law.

The continuing relevance of Lessig's theory is evident in current scholarship examining social media, extended reality, algorithms and emerging digital environments. Recent scholarship specifically revisits the four modalities of law, norms, market and architecture in the context of extended reality and other new technologies.

47. Examination-Oriented Definition

Code as Law is the theory that computer code, software, algorithms, protocols and digital architecture function as mechanisms of behavioural regulation in cyberspace by determining what users can, cannot, or must do. Although code is not necessarily “law” in the formal jurisprudential sense, its ability to technically permit, restrict, monitor and enforce behaviour can produce regulatory effects comparable to law.

48. Key Principles for Revision

1. Code regulates behaviour.
2. Code is a form of digital architecture.
3. Architecture can enable or restrict conduct.
4. Code is not automatically formal law.
5. Legal rights can limit technical restrictions.
6. Private platforms can exercise regulatory power through code.
7. Algorithms can become instruments of governance.
8. Privacy depends partly on architectural design.
9. Digital access can implicate constitutional rights.
10. Technical authorization and legal authorization are different concepts.
11. Smart-contract execution does not necessarily determine legal validity.
12. AI makes algorithmic governance increasingly important.
13. Code can enforce rules preventively rather than retrospectively.
14. Democratic legitimacy and accountability remain major concerns.
15. Courts and regulators remain capable of reviewing the legal consequences of technical architecture.

Conclusion

Code as Law represents a fundamental transformation in the way regulation operates in the digital environment. Traditional law tells people what they are legally permitted or prohibited from doing; code can go further by structuring the technological environment so that certain actions are permitted, restricted, monitored or made impossible.

The theory is particularly important today because digital platforms, cloud systems, AI models, blockchain networks and online marketplaces increasingly exercise regulatory power through their technical architecture.

The cases of Reno, Zeran, Yahoo!/LICRA, Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin, Packingham, Van Buren, hiQ, Apple v. Pepper and MySpace collectively demonstrate the central proposition:

Code can regulate behaviour very powerfully, but code does not exist outside law. Its legitimacy, enforceability and limits continue to be determined by contracts, statutes, constitutional rights and judicial review.

Thus, the modern formulation is better expressed as:

“Code regulates like law, but code is not necessarily law.”